The Lost City
The Gospels tell us that Jesus's home town was the 'City of
Nazareth' ('polis Natzoree'):
And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God
unto a CITY of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a
man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was
Mary.
(Luke1.26,27)
And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph
also went up from Galilee, out of the CITY of Nazareth, into
Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; because he was of
the house and lineage of David:
(Luke 2.3,4)
But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room
of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned
of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: And he came and
dwelt in a CITY called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which
was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
(Matthew 2.22,23)
And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they
returned into Galilee, to their own CITY Nazareth. And the child
grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was
upon him.
(Luke 2.39,40)
The gospels do not tell us much about this 'city' – it has a synagogue, it can
scare up a hostile crowd (prompting JC's famous "prophet rejected
in his own land" quote), and it has a precipice – but the city
status of Nazareth is clearly established, at least according to that
source of nonsense called the Bible.
However when we look for historical confirmation of
this hometown of a god – surprise, surprise! – no other source confirms
that the place even existed in the 1st century AD.
•
Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old
Testament. The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it
claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area –
records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its
list.
• The Talmud,
although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth,
nor does early rabbinic literature.
• St
Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'. Rabbi Solly's epistles (real and
fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all.
• No ancient historian or geographer mentions
Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.
None of this would matter of course if,
rather like at the nearby 'pagan' city of Sepphoris, we could stroll through
the ruins of 1st century bath houses, villas, theatres etc. Yet no such
ruins exist.
Sepphoris
– an ersatz Nazareth?
|
|
No, not Nazareth but Sepphoris (Diocaesarea), a 45-minute
walk away – and which does not get a mention in the gospels!
Credulous believers sometimes suggest that Jesus may have worked (with his
father!) on the town's construction or even attended the theatre in
Sepphoris (hypocrite, after all, is a Greek word for actor!).
Contrariwise, others suggest that the "Torah-abiding Jesus"
avoided the town because of its corrupting Hellenism. These mutually
exclusive explanations are feeble attempts to solve the "puzzle"
of why the gospels fail to mention the "capital" of Galilee.
In reality, in the early 1st
century, Sepphoris was no larger than several acres, an erstwhile Herodian
palace-town destroyed by Varus, the Roman governor of Syria, in 4 BC.
Sepphoris reemerged as an ill-planned townlet during the time of Antipas.
Only in the late 1st and 2nd centuries, particularly after
the Jewish wars, did a vibrant, Romanised Sepphoris emerge, with theatres,
bath houses and all the other amenities of pagan civilisation.
|
|
Downsizing
In short order, Christian apologists
fall over themselves to explain, 'But of course, no one had heard of
Nazareth, we're talking of a REALLY small place.' By semantic
downsizing, city becomes TOWN, town becomes VILLAGE, and village becomes
'OBSCURE HAMLET'.
Yet if we are speaking of such an
obscure hamlet the 'Jesus of Nazareth' story begins to fall apart.
For example, the whole 'rejection
in his homeland' story requires at a minimum a synagogue in which the
godman can 'blaspheme.' Where was the synagogue in this tiny
bucolic hamlet? Why was it not obvious to the first pilgrims like Helena (see
below) – it would, after all, have been far more pertinent to her hero than a
well? In reality, such a small, rustic community could never have afforded
its own holy scrolls, let alone a dedicated building to house them. As peasant
farmers almost certainly they would have been illiterate to a man.
If JC had grown up and spent thirty years of his life
in a village with as few as 25 families – an inbred clan of less than
300 people – the 'multitude' that were supposedly shocked by his blasphemy
and would have thrown him from a cliff, would not have been hostile strangers
but, to a man, would have been relatives and friends that
he had grown up with, including his own brothers. Presumably, they had heard
his pious utterances for years.
Moreover, if the chosen virgin really had
had an annunciation of messiah-birthing from an angel the whole clan
would have known about it inside ten minutes. Just to remind them,
surely they should also have known of the 'Jerusalem incident' (Luke 2.42-49)
when supposedly the 12-year-old proclaimed his messiahship?
Indeed, had no one mentioned what had
happened in Bethlehem – star, wise men, shepherds,
infant-massacre and all? Why would they have been outraged by anything the
godman said or did? Had they forgotten a god was growing up in
their midst? And what had happened to that gift of gold – had it not
made the 'holy family' rich?
If Nazareth
really had been barely a hamlet, lost in the
hills of Galilee, would not the appellation 'Jesus of Nazareth' have invoked
the response 'Jesus of WHERE?' The predictable apologetic of
quoting gospel John ("Can anything good come out of
Nazareth?" - 1.46) implies that the questioner, Nathanael, had indeed
"heard of" the vanishing small hamlet (Nathanael was supposedly a
local boy from Cana). But would anyone outside of Galilee have recognized the
name?
Then again, if Nazareth had really been
a tiny hamlet, the nearest convenient 'mountain' from which the god-man could
have been thrown – a cliff edge (Luke 4.28-30) – would have been 4 km away, requiring an
energetic climb over limestone crags. Would the superman really have been
frog-marched so far before 'passing through the midst of them' and
making his escape?
Of course, all these incongruities
exist because the 'Jerusalem incident' and the whole nativity sequence were
late additions to the basic messiah-in-residence story.
Be that as it may, was there even
a tiny village?
The
archaeological evidence?
The world has been blessed by the fact
that excavation at Nazareth has been conducted by Catholic archaeologists. In
an earlier age they may well have "found" sandals neatly inscribed
with "property of Jesus Christ". As it is, they
diligently extract every last drop of sanctity from some pretty meagre
findings. Yet for all their creative interpretations even the Franciscans
cannot disguise the fact that the lack of evidence for a pre-Jesus village at
the Nazareth site is virtually total.
Not that the Franciscans have lacked
the opportunity to find what they want to find; they have, in fact, been in
Palestine for several centuries, official custodians of the 'Holy
Land' as a result of Papal Bulls 'Gratias agimus' and 'Nuper
charissimae' issued by Clement VI in 1342.
During the Crusaders' wars, Nazareth
had changed hands several times. At one point (1099) the Norman-Sicilian
adventurer Tancred had set up a 'principality of Galilee' with
Nazareth as his capital. But the Christians were repeatedly kicked out until
finally, in 1263, Nazareth was completely devastated by Sultan Baibars and the
whole area left desolate for nearly 400 years.
The Franciscans got back into the area
under a deal with Fakhr ad-Din II, emir of Lebanon, in 1620. They reoccupied
the remains of the crusader fort but found Greek monks still in possession
of 'Mary's Well' . With funds flowing in they took over the
town administration and in 1730 built a church over the Grotto. The demolition
of this structure in 1955 paved the way for 'professional' archaeology, and the
'discovery' of the Biblical Nazareth in the very grounds of the Church itself!
Christian Hero No 1. 1955-1960
Excavations conducted by Father Bellarmino Bagatti (Professor, Studium Biblicum
Franciscanum at Flagellation, Jerusalem). Beneath his own church and adjoining
land, Bagatti discovered numerous caves and hollows. Some of these caves have
obviously had a great deal of use, over many centuries. Most are tombs, many
from the Bronze Age. Others have been adapted for use as water cisterns, as
vats for oil or as 'silos' for grain. Apparently, there were indications that
Nazareth had been 'refounded' in Hasmonean times after a long period when the
area had been deserted. Yet overwhelmingly, archaeological evidence from before
the second century is funerary. Obliged to admit
a dearth of suitable evidence of habitation, none the less, Bagatti was able
conclude that 1st century AD Nazareth had been 'a small agricultural
village settled by a few dozen families.'
With a great leap of faith the partisan
diggers declared what they had found was 'the village of Jesus, Mary &
Joseph' – though they had not found a village at all, and certainly no
evidence of particular individuals. The finds were consistent, in fact, with
isolated horticultural activity, close to a necropolis of long-usage.
Rather conveniently for the Catholic
Church, questionable graffiti also indicated that the shrine was dedicated to
the Virgin Mary, no less!
Yet one point is inescapable: the
Jewish disposition towards the 'uncleanliness' of the dead. The Jews,
according to their customs, would not build a village in the immediate vicinity
of tombs and vice versa. Tombs would have to be outside any
village.
"The tombs, both those discovered by Bagatti and others known from
earlier explorations, would have been placed outside the village and serve, in
fact, to delimit its circumference for us. Looking at their locations on the
plans drawn up by Bagatti (1.28) or Finegan (27), one realizes just how small
the village actually was ..."
– J.D. Crossan, The Historical Jesus.
But just how small can we get before giving up on a 'village'? The presence of
numerous rock-cut tombs that close to the 'grotto' is evidence
that, in the 1st century, in that area, there was no village. The area
was not inhabited, even if it was used.
Christian Hero No 2. 1996 -1997
Dr. Pfann (Franciscan School of Theology) digs at Nazareth. In November 1996 Stephen
Pfann of the Center for the Study of Early Christianity began
an investigation of agricultural terraces in the grounds of Nazareth Hospital.
What Pfann and his crew came up with was a vaguely-dated winepress, described
as 'ancient'. Potsherds were also found on the surface of the
terraces, dating from various periods 'beginning with the early to late
Roman periods.'
An archaeological survey of the surface
of the land adjacent to Nazareth Hospital was conducted between February and
May 1997 by Pfann and a team, all from the Center for the Study of
Early Christianity. Two distinct areas were identified which are defined by
the type of terracing found there. Yet dating by traditional
stratification was not possible.
With typical Christian zeal Pfann was
able to conclude that 'Nazareth was tiny, with two or three clans
living in 35 homes spread over 2.5 hectares'. It was just unfortunate that
all evidence of the homes was razed by later invaders.
In truth, the scanty evidence is
consistent with the site being used as a single family farm over
many centuries – and a single family farm does not make a village.
Excavations by Michael Avi-Yonah at
Caesarea in 1962:
History and archaeology actually begin
to coincide with the discovery of a fragment of dark gray marble at a synagogue
in Caesarea Maritima in August 1962. Dating from the late 3rd or early 4th
century the stone bears the first mention of Nazareth in
a non-Christian text. It names Nazareth as one of the places in
Galilee where the priestly families of Judea migrated after the disastrous
Hadrianic war of 135 AD. Such groups would only settle in towns without gentile
inhabitants, which ruled out nearby Sepphoris. Apparently, the priests had been
divided from ancient times into twenty-four 'courses' that took weekly turns in
Temple service. The restored inscription reads:
'The eighteenth priestly course [called] Hapizzez, [resettled at]
Nasareth.'
– J.D. Crossan (The Historical Jesus)
A few Jewish priests and their families made up a small settlement in the
southeast of the valley until the 4th century. Quite probably, they extended
and re-used some of the ancient necropolis tombs. The Jewish hamlet was then
supplanted by the Christian presence slightly further north, by 'Mary's Well'.
One might speculate that Christian
control of the village's sole water source eventually drove
the perfidious Jews away, thus allowing the Greek monks to take over the 2nd
century synagogue – now known as the 'synagogue-church' – sometime in the 4th
century when Christianity got the official stamp of approval. A town grew up at
the site, causing the abandonment and destruction of any more ancient Jewish
dwellings which, as in Capernaum, were most probably built without foundations.
Some Jews subsequently re-settled in the valley, for we know that they were
expelled again from the area in the 7th century for collaboration with the
Persians.
Getting
a Name
The expression 'Jesus of Nazareth' is
actually a bad translation of the original Greek 'Jesous o Nazoraios' (see
below). More accurately, we should speak of 'Jesus the Nazarene' where Nazarene
has a meaning quite unrelated to a place name. But just what is that meaning
and how did it get applied to a small village? The highly ambiguous Hebrew root
of the name is NZR.
The 2nd century gnostic Gospel
of Philip offers this explanation:
'The apostles that came before us called him Jesus Nazarene the Christ
..."Nazara" is the "Truth". Therefore 'Nazarene' is
"The One of the Truth" ...'
– Gospel of Philip, 47.
What we do know is that 'Nazarene' (or 'Nazorean') was originally the name of an early Jewish-Christian sect –
a faction, or off-shoot, of the Essenes. They had no particular relation to a
city of Nazareth. The root of their name may have been 'Truth' or it may have
been the Hebrew noun 'netser' ('netzor'), meaning 'branch' or
'flower.' The plural of 'Netzor' becomes 'Netzoreem.' There is no
mention of the Nazarenes in any of Paul's writings, although
ironically, Paul is himself accused of being a Nazorean
in Acts of the Apostles. The reference scarcely means that Paul was
a resident of Nazareth (we all know the guy hails from Tarsus!).
'For finding this man a pest, and moving sedition among all the Jews
throughout the world, and a leader of the sect of the Nazaraeans.' –
Acts 24.5. (Darby Translation).
The Nazorim emerged towards the end of the 1st century, after
a curse had been placed on heretics in Jewish daily prayer.
'Three times a day they say: May God curse the Nazarenes'.
– Epiphanius (Panarion 29.9.2).
The Nazarenes may have seen themselves as a 'branch from the stem of Jesse (the
legendary King David's father)'. Certainly, they had their own early version of
'Matthew'. This lost text – the Gospel of the Nazarenes – can
hardly be regarded as a 'Gospel of the inhabitants of Nazareth'!
It was the later Gospel of
Matthew which started the deceit that the title 'Jesus the Nazorene'
should in some manner relate to Nazareth, by quoting 'prophecy':
"And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be
fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a
Nazarene."
– Matthew 2.23.
With this, Matthew closes his fable of Jesus's early years. Yet
Matthew is misquoting – he would surely know that nowhere in Jewish prophetic
literature is there any reference to a Nazarene. What is
'foretold' (or at least mentioned several times) in Old Testament scripture is
the appearance of a Nazarite. For example:
"For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come
on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from
the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the
Philistines."
– Judges 13.5.
Matthew slyly substitutes one word for
another. By replacing Nazarite ('he who vows to grow long hair
and serve god') with a term which appears to imply 'resident of' he
is able to fabricate a hometown link for his fictitious hero.
So how did the village get its name?
It seems that, along with the Nozerim,
a related Jewish/Christian faction, the Evyonim – ‘the Poor’
(later to be called Ebionites) – emerged about the same time. According to
Epiphanius (Bishop of Salamis , Cyprus, circa 370 AD) they arose from within the
Nazarenes. They differed doctrinally from the original group in rejecting Paul
and were 'Jews who pay honour to Christ as a just man...' They
too, it seems, had their own prototype version of Matthew – ‘The Gospel
to the Hebrews’. A name these sectaries chose for themselves was 'Keepers
of the Covenant', in Hebrew Nozrei haBrit, whence Nosrim or
Nazarene!
In other words, when it came to the
crunch, the original Nazarenes split into two: those who tried to re-position
themselves within the general tenets of Judaism ('Evyonim'-Nosrim); and those
who rejected Judaism ('Christian'-Nosrim)
Now, we know that a group of 'priestly'
families resettled an area in the Nazareth valley after their defeat in the Bar
Kochbar War of 135 AD (see above). It seems highly probable
that they were Evyonim-Nosrim and named their village
'Nazareth' or the village of 'The Poor' either because of self-pity or
because doctrinally they made a virtue out of their poverty.
"Blessed are the Poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of
Heaven."
– Matthew 5,3.
The writer of Matthew (re-writer of the proto-Matthew stories) heard of
'priestly' families moving to a place in Galilee which they had called
'Nazareth' – and decided to use the name of the new town for the
hometown of his hero.
Dodgy
Story, Dodgy Geography
The original gospel writers refrained
from inventing a childhood, youth or early manhood for JC because
it was not necessary to their central drama of a dying/reborn sun-god. But as
we know, the story grew with the telling, particularly as the decades passed
and the promised redeemer and judge failed to reappear. The re-writer of
the Gospel of Mark, revising the text sometime between 140 and 150
AD, introduced the name of the city only once, in chapter one, with these
words:
"And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth
of Galilee and was baptized by John at the Jordan."
– Mark I, 9.
Ironically, an indication that this sole reference to a town called
Nazareth in Mark is a late, harmonization interpolation is to
be found in the Gospel of Matthew. Copying the same baptism episode
from an early edition of Mark, the author of Matthew makes
no mention of Nazareth:
"Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be
baptized by him." – Matthew 3.13.
In the Greek New Testament no fewer than eleven variant
spellings are used for Nazarene, Nazarean and Nazareth. In total the words
occur thirty-one times. Though you would never guess from the English
translations, on nineteen occasions Nazarene or
Nazarean, not Nazareth, is intended. And in the Gospel of Mark,
all four later occurences (1.24; 16.6; 10.47;14.67) the word used is
Nazarene, not Nazareth.
Clearly, "Jesus the Nazarene"
in the original tale became "Jesus, a resident of Nazareth" in the
updated story of Matthew and Luke. Indeed, there
are indications that an early layer in the development of Mark favoured
Capernaum as the hometown of Jesus (home of the six most
prominent disciples, venue for several key miracles, etc.).
We can trace the subsequent elevation
of Nazareth in the Gospel of Luke. Luke is the writer who
emphasizes JC's ties to 'Nazareth.' Luke is the writer who goes out
of his way to demonstrate an anti-Capernaum stance. Scholars have concluded
Luke was not a Jew himself because of his 'glaring
errors in things Jewish'. He also makes mistakes in his geography. He
knows little about the place and in his mini-drama describes an impossible
incident:
" ... and brought him to the precipice of the mountain that their
city was built upon." – Luke 4.29.
Nazareth, in fact, is located in a
depression, set within gentle hills. The whole region is characterized by
plains and mild rises with no sharp peaks or steep cliffs. The terrain is
correctly understood as a high basin, for in one direction is the
much lower Plain of Esdraelon. But there is no disguising Nazareth
is built in a valley and not on a mountain. Even the mediaeval town sat below
the summit – protected from the wind. Beginning only in 1957, the Jewish suburb
called 'Nazerat Illit' ('Upper Nazareth') was built to the top
of the hills to the east of the city.
|
Foreground
(below that pointy building): – supposed location of 1st
century 'city' of Nazareth
|
Background & right:
'Mount of Precipice' (aka 'Lord's Leap')
"When
they heard these things, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath.
And they rose up and drove him out of the town and brought him to the brow of
the hill on which their town was built, so that they could throw him down the
cliff. But passing through their midst, he went away." – Luke
4.28-30.
|
Perhaps the Multitude might really have threatened to roll JC down the
slope?
|
|
It would take quite some time to get from the downtown 'synagogue' and
scramble to the top of the 'cliff'!
|
The
Town that Theology Built
In the 3rd century Church Father Origen knew
the gospel story of the city of Nazareth – yet had no clear idea where
it was – even though he lived at Caesarea, barely thirty miles from the present
town! Even in Origen's day, as the Church became more institutionalised,
intense rivalry was developing between the patriarchs of Caesarea and
Jerusalem. This rivalry was only resolved (in Jerusalem's favour) at Chalcedon in
451. Part of the rivalry centred on control of 'Holy places'.
Hence, 'finding' the lost city of Nazareth was a matter of major importance,
Perambulating to the rescue, in the
early 4th century, came the 80-year-old dowager Empress Helena.
Preparing the way for an imminent meeting with her maker with a program of 'Works',
she made a conscience-salving pilgrimage to Palestine. In the area of Nazareth
she could find nothing but an ancient well – in fact the only
water source in the area (which in itself demolishes the idea there was ever a
'city' ). No doubt encouraged by canny locals, Helena promptly labelled the
hole in the ground 'Mary's Well' and had a small basilica built over the spot.
Conveniently, the gospels had failed to make clear exactly where Mary
had been when the archangel Gabriel had come calling. Thus the Well site
acquired local support for the divine visitation and Nazareth acquired its
first church.
Helena created the pilgrimage business which
has never ceased. Yet before the passage of the imperial
grandee, not a single ancient source had established a precise location
for the 'Nazara' of the gospels.
|
|
|
'Mary's
Well': A
hole in the ground evidence for Holy Family (about as convincing as an
empty tomb)
Note
collection box for coins, lower right.
|
|
4th Century Pilgrim Route – and NO NAZARETH!
|
|
Itinerarium Burdigalense – the Itinerary of the Anonymous Pilgrim of
Bordeaux – is the earliest description left by a pious tourist. It
is dated to 333 AD. The itinerary is a Roman-style list of towns and
distances with the occasional comment.
As the pilgrim passes Jezreel (Stradela) he
mentions King Ahab and Goliath. At Aser
(Teyasir) he mentions Job. At Neopolis his reference is to Mount
Gerizim, Abraham, Joseph, and Jacob's well at
Sichar (where JC 'asked water of a Samaritan woman'). He passes the village
of Bethel (Beitin) and mentions Jacob's wrestling match with
God, and Jeroboam. He moves on to Jerusalem.
Our pilgrim – preoccupied with Old rather than
New Testament stories – makes no single reference to 'Nazareth.'
|
A generation after the dowager empress
had gone touring, another geriatric grandee, the Lady Egeria,
spent years in the 'Land becoming more Holy by the day'.
Egeria – a Spaniard, like the then
Emperor Theodosius and almost certainly part of the imperial entourage –
reached the Nazareth area in 383. This time, canny monks showed her a 'big
and very splendid cave' and gave the assurance that this was where
Mary had lived. The Custodians of the Cave, not to be outbid by the
Keepers of the Well, insisted that the cave, not the well, had been the site of
the divine visitation. This so-called 'grotto' became another pilgrimage
attraction, over which – by 570 – rose the basilica of another church. Today,
above and about the Venerable Grotto, stands the biggest Christian theme park
in the Middle East.
4th Century Roman Map – and NO NAZARETH!
The Levantine coast from the so-called
Peutinger map or "table" (Tabula Peutingeriana), with west to
the top. The complete map is twenty-two feet wide and is so-named for Conrad
Peutinger, a 16th century German antiquarian and is currently held in Vienna.
The map is actually a medieval copy (12th or 13th century) of a 4th century
Roman original (it shows Constantinople, founded in the year 328). The whole
world known to the Romans is represented, from Spain in the west to India in
the east.
In the section shown here, below the
city of Aelia Capitolina (centre left), the map shows one site which had by
this stage entered the Christian dreamscape – the Mount of Olives (red).
The cartographer of this unique record named more than 3000 places. And guess
what? – he does not mention Nazareth!
|
|
|
Grotto beneath Basilica of the Annunciation. Mary's 'maiden home'
(or even home of the holy family, if you prefer)
|
|
By the late 4th century – by which time
the Church had control of theological correctness – Nazareth was being
correctly described by Jerome as 'a very small village
in Galilee' (Onom. 141:3). He should know: he had fled
scandal in Italy to set up an ecclesiastical retreat in the area for
well-heeled Romans. The village owed its very existence to the imperial
itinerary half a century before.
By the 5th century the supposed site of
Nazareth – marked by its couple of churches – had become a key destination for
pious (and leisured) pilgrims. We know of a Piacenza visiting
in 570, of an Arculf visiting in 638, a Wilhebald in
724, an Al Mas'udi in 943. Sewulf in 1102,
like the earlier visitors, reported that only the annunciation church was to be
seen.
In 636 Arab armies overran Byzantine
possessions in Palestine, including Nazareth. A Christian presence continued in
the area, though it was subject to restrictions and heavy taxes. Nearly five centuries
later, Crusaders occupied the valley and built a fort. On the foundations of
the earlier Byzantine 'grotto' church they built something a little grander,
more befitting their resident bishop.
|
Old town Nazareth – an ecclesiastic theme-park
|
|
|
|
'JesusWorld'
In the center of town, the huge Catholic
Church of the Annunciation (largest church in the Middle East) built
over numerous caves.
Up the hill, Church of St. Joseph built
over other caves ('carpenter's house and workshop').
Across the street, Sisters of Nazareth
Hospice, built over ancient tombs, one with a huge rolling stone door!
Up the road, the Greek Catholic
Church, next to an early synagogue
|
Today more than a million visitors
(fifty per cent of tourists visiting Israel) call at Nazareth. Who would want
to spoil the party? So perhaps keep it quiet ...
The evidence for a 1st century town of
Nazareth does not exist – not literary, not archaeological, and not historical.
It is an imaginary city for an imaginary god-man.
'Never heard
of the place' – Josephus
In his histories, Josephus has a lot to say about Galilee (an area of
barely 900 square miles). During the first Jewish war, in the 60s AD, Josephus
led a military campaign back and forth across the tiny province. Josephus
mentions 45 cities and villages of Galilee – yet Nazareth not at all.
Josephus does, however, have something to say about Japha (Yafa,
Japhia), a village just one mile to the southwest of Nazareth where he himself lived
for a time (Life 52).
A glance at a topographical map of the region shows that Nazareth is
located at one end of a valley, bounded on three sides by hills. Natural
access to this valley is from the southwest.
Before the first Jewish war, Japha was of a reasonable size. We know it
had an early synagogue, destroyed by the Romans in 67 AD (Revue Biblique 1921,
434f). In that war, it's inhabitants were massacred (Wars 3, 7.31).
Josephus reports that 15,000 were killed by Trajan's troops. The survivors – 2,130
woman and children – were carried away into captivity. A one-time active city
was completely and decisively wiped out.
Now where on earth did the 1st century inhabitants of Japha bury their
dead? In the tombs further up the valley!
With Japha's complete destruction, tomb use at the Nazareth site would
have ended. The unnamed necropolis today lies under the modern city of
Nazareth.
At a later time – as pottery and other finds indicate(see
below) – the Nazareth site was re-occupied. This was after the Bar
Kochba revolt of 135 AD and the general Jewish exodus from Judea to
Galilee. The new hamlet was based on subsistence farming and was quite
unrelated to the previous tomb usage by the people of Japha.
VATICAN CONFIRMATION that JOSEPH of ARIMATHAEA (the VIRGIN's uncle) went to ENGLAND and continued the Conversion of the BRITISH.
(It had already been STARTED by Jesus - Himself).
Joseph de Marmore (Marmorica in Egypt) from Arimathaea, was (according to a manuscript at Jesus College Oxford) brother to Bianca and Ann (V. Mary's mother); uncle to Virgin Mary and great-uncle to Jesus, whose body he claimed from Pontius Pilate, as, by law, only a relative could.
The Catholic priest Polydore Vergil who was born in Italy in 1470; studied at Bologna and Padua; was so renowned for his literary talents that catholic Henry 7th (NOT the Protestant 8th) asked him to write an English History. As an Italian and a Catholic proxy Bishop; Prebendary and Archdeacon who became Chamberlain to Pope Alexander VII, he had no axe to grind on behalf of Britain or the British Church. It would no doubt have suited him much better if he could have written of Rome as being the first Christian church but he could not and did not. He wrote:-
"Britain, partly through Joseph of Arimathaea, partly through Fugatus and Damianus, was of all kingdoms FIRST TO RECEIVE THE GOSPEL." (Even before Palestine).
The antiquity of the British church had been challenged by the ambassadors of Spain and France before the Roman Catholic Council of Pisa (A.D. 1417). The British (catholic) delegates Robert Hallam, Bishop of Salisbury, Henry Chichele, a former Archbishop of Canterbury and Thomas Chillendon, won the day, the council affirmed that the British church (not the Church of England and not catholic because it was pre-catholic) was the first Christian church (community).
The ambassadors appealed to the Roman Catholic Council of Constance, also in A.D. 1417, and that council confirmed the findings of the Council of Pisa.
A third decision by the Roman Catholic Council at Sienna 1424 again confirmed the antiquity of the British church and, finally at the Council at Basle in 1434 it was laid down that the churches of Spain and France had to accept the precedence of the British Church, which it was affirmed, was founded by Joseph of Arimathaea (Mary's uncle) "immediately after the passion of Christ."
The VATICAN MANUSCRIPT quoted by Baronius in his "Ecclesiastical Annals A.D. 35", (the same year in which the Acts of the Apostles state that all, except the Apostles, were scattered abroad from Judaea) records that in this year Lazarus, Maria Magdalene, Martha, her handmaiden Marcella, Maximin a disciple, Joseph the Decurion (Roman Minister for Mines) of Arimathaea, against all of whom the Jewish people had special reasons for hatred, were exposed to the sea in a vessel without sails or oars. The vessel drifted finally to Marseilles, and they were saved. From Marseilles Joseph and his company passed into Britain, and after preaching the Gospel there, died (and was buried). Other sources report that there were a total of 14 people in the vessel.
John had been made guardian of Virgin Mary, by Jesus, from the cross, but John became a fugitive and so passed the guardianship over to Mary's uncle Joseph of Arimathaea who, being the Roman Minister of Mines (and having become rich by trading with mines in Britain for years), was the least vulnerable and Mary could therefore not be any safer than she was with him.
The fact that Mary was NOT with John is proved by his second letter which was written to her saying that he hoped to be able to visit her; but he became exiled on the Island of Patmos, where Christ gave him the Book of Revelation/Apocalypse, so Mary went with Joseph of Arimathaea to England (where they are BOTH buried, as USED to be taught by the early Catholic Church). Britain was the ONLY place they COULD go to, that was SAFE from Roman Persecution, because the Romans had already conquered and subjugated everywhere, except for Britain.
2 John (John's Second Letter - in The Holy Bible - New Covenant/Testament)
1:1 The "Elder" unto the elect lady (Mary) and her CHILDREN (Matt. 13:55-56), whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the Truth (Heb. Nazir - Jesus Nazir);
1:3 Grace be with you, mercy, [and] peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus+Christ, (Christ the spirit-Being) the Son of the Father (not the son of Mary), in truth and love.
1:12 Having many things to write unto you, I would not [write] with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full.
Jesus grew up safely in England (the city of Nazareth did not exist until the fourth century A.D.) and started his ministry in England with the "Lost sheep of the House of Israel" (10 lost tribes) before going to Palestine. That is why there is no mention in the Gospels of his being in Israel except for on one occasion at age twelve when he visited The Temple, as was the custom.
God tells us, through the Prophet Daniel*, that the Messiah will confirm The Covenant for one week (7 days - 7 years in Prophecy) and we know that his ministry in Palestine was not one week nor seven years in duration. The British people (the "House of Israel") in England were already accepting Jesus as the promised Messiah and were being converted by Him in the beginning of that "week", before He left to fulfill His mission and complete the "week" in Palestine, hence:-
Matthew 21:43 Therefore say I unto you (the Jews), The Kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a NATION (NOT a church) bringing forth (already) the fruits thereof (the "10 lost tribes" - the "House of Israel", in Britain).
Matthew 10:5 These TWELVE (including PETER - 10:2) Jesus sent forth, and COMMANDED them, saying, Go NOT into the way of the Gentiles (ROME, etc.), and into [any] city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the "House of Israel" (NOT the "House of Jewdah").
* Daniel 9:27 "And he shall CONFIRM The Covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week (WEDNESDAY NOT Friday) he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations He shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation (the "Lake of Hell-Fire"), and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate."
Matthew 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the Scriptures, The "Stone" which the builders* REJECTED, the same is become the Head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? (Psalm 2)
21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The Kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof (the "10 lost tribes"- the "House of Israel").
21:44 And whosoever shall fall on this "Stone" shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it (the "Stone") will grind him to powder. (Daniel 2:34-35)
21:45 And when the *chief priests and politicians had heard his parables, they perceived that he spoke about them.
21:46 But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a Prophet. - JAH
https://jahtruth.net/joarim.htm
https://jahtruth.net/darth.htm
